"BEST" temperature record study surprises skeptics

Last month, a team of scientists from Berkeley called the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) group released results from research they did on the Earth surface temperature record. Though there have been numerous studies and time series created on surface temperature, they wanted to take an independent look at the data and create a new temperature record. What they found was surprising to some in the "skeptic" community, though not surprising to most climate scientists.

Dr. Richard Muller is the founder and scientific director of the BEST group, which is made up of physicists, statisticians, and climatologists. Though Dr. Muller has been described as a climate change "skeptic" and "denialist," he has an impressive and extensive curriculum vitae in physics, including being a consultant for the U.S. Department of Defense, and a MacArther Foundation Fellow, and the recipient of the National Science Foundation Alan T. Altman Award. His skepticism is evidenced most frequently in the press by his funding from the Koch brothers, who have made billions of dollars in the oil industry. The BEST project also accepted funding from Koch, among many other organizations, though the funders had no influence over methodology or results, which is almost always the case in peer reviewed science. The BEST group also includes Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, who has recently been vocal about the need for a more transparent scientific process, and more eyes on the data, especially when it comes to research on man-made global warming and the temperature record.

The BEST team was open with their hypothesis: they expected to find that, when using temperature stations that other organizations failed to include, the warming trend wouldn't be present, or at least not as dramatic. Their objectives are listed on their website (which also includes access to data and submitted papers), which include:

-- Merging land surface data into a raw dataset that's in a common format and easy to use-- Developing new and potentially better ways of processing, average, and merging the data-- Creating a new global temperature record-- To provide not only the raw data and the resulting record, but also the code and tools used to get there, making the process as transparent as possible

Figure 1. Locations of the the 39,028 temperature stations in the Berkeley Earth data set (blue). Stations classified as rural are plotted on top in black.

The BEST project collaborators combined data from 15 sources that, wherever possible, did not include the tried and true data that the "big three" (NASA, NOAA, or HadCRU) used in their analyses, mainly the GHCN Monthly dataset, which is widely used because of its requirements that the each station in the data set have plenty of observations, no gaps, and no erroneous data. However, the BEST project was born to create a new global surface temperature record, and to "see what you get" if you use observations that other institutions have weeded out. BEST looked at data from 39,028 different temperature measurement stations from around the globe (Figure 1), and developed an averaging process to merge the stations into one record, which you see below in comparison to previous records that have been constructed.

Figure 2. Temperature time series from the big three: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Science (NASA GISS, blue), NOAA (green), and the Hadley Centre and Climate Research Unit of East Anglia (HadCRU, red) along with the results from the BEST project (black).

The result was a new land surface temperature series to be added to the well-cited records of NOAA, NASA, and HadCRU, in addition to some truly independent, amateur compilations. The new temperature record agrees with the records from "the big three," and agrees with them on a warming of 1°C since 1950. BEST also addressed concerns raised by the skeptic community about station bias and urban heat island effect. They conclude that the urban heat island effect does not contribute significantly to the land temperature rise, given that urban area is only 1% of the land area in the record. Also, they looked at the stations that Anthony Watts has reported as "poor" quality, and have found that they also showed the same warming as the stations that were reported as "OK." This helps to show that temperature stations were not "cherry picked" in previous studies for warming trends, but for honest station quality.

The addition of another (eventually) peer-reviewed temperature series is good, and more eyes looking at the data is good, but the result is not surprising. However, it might have changed the minds of some skeptics who have been wanting to see an analysis from scientists that they find trustworthy. I think Dr. Muller sums their results up nicely in his Wall Street Journal opinion article:

When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that.

The BEST project has four papers out for review in various journals. Having released the results to the public eye before undergoing the scrutiny of peer review, they've also made some updates to the analysis since these papers were submitted, thanks to a peer review process of its own: the internet.

First, it is as difficult for me to explain economics to you as it would be for Einstein to explain relativity to a person who never took math or physics. But, I will try with one simple example of the folly of your statements regarding stock of companies.

Suppose someone sold stock in a gold mining endeavor for $1,000. He uses the $1,000 to buy picks and shovels and a map. Day 1 there is $1,000 in a combination of picks and shovels and some cash left over. He has stock certificates in the hands of the owners for $1,000. So at the end of day 1 he might be able to sell his assets, maps, cash , picks and shovels for $1,000. I think we can agree on that.Day 2, he buys a small piece of land with his cash and dig and discover gold vein worth $1,000,000. Now tell me what my stock certificates are now worth and why.

You and others like you believe that wealth comes via luck and won't even acknowledge the effort of our gold miner to go out and get capital and assemble the assets needed to mine and then dig for the gold. Oh, I forgot to tell you that he broke an ankle and ended up with callouses on his hands and didn't get to take his kid to the first day of kindergarten. Perhaps after he discovers the gold you think he should share it with you. I think not.People like you and the majority here make me sick.

Now substitute the gold mine with Model Ts or Apple computers or Wonder Bread.

Everything in your post was incorrect. Everything.

The difference between you and this gathering of self-proclaimed climate and economy experts frequenting this blog is Education vs Google.

Many on here are becoming more and more adept at paraphrasing the writings of others found in factoids and representing their postings as a wealth of their own knowledge and deep understandings.

That is why sometimes "the sound of silence is thundering" as they scramble to research a response.

Therefore, to wit, and ergo, you face an endless harangue of Liberal Sophism, self-aggrandizement and mental onanism to enter into any debate here.

Let's put it to the test:

"How has the ACLU transformed the American Corporation from infancy to adulthood?"

First, it is as difficult for me to explain economics to you as it would be for Einstein to explain relativity to a person who never took math or physics. But, I will try with one simple example of the folly of your statements regarding stock of companies.

Suppose someone sold stock in a gold mining endeavor for $1,000. He uses the $1,000 to buy picks and shovels and a map. Day 1 there is $1,000 in a combination of picks and shovels and some cash left over. He has stock certificates in the hands of the owners for $1,000. So at the end of day 1 he might be able to sell his assets, maps, cash , picks and shovels for $1,000. I think we can agree on that.Day 2, he buys a small piece of land with his cash and dig and discover gold vein worth $1,000,000. Now tell me what my stock certificates are now worth and why.

You and others like you believe that wealth comes via luck and won't even acknowledge the effort of our gold miner to go out and get capital and assemble the assets needed to mine and then dig for the gold. Oh, I forgot to tell you that he broke an ankle and ended up with callouses on his hands and didn't get to take his kid to the first day of kindergarten. Perhaps after he discovers the gold you think he should share it with you. I think not.People like you and the majority here make me sick.

Now substitute the gold mine with Model Ts or Apple computers or Wonder Bread.

I am well aware of how The Federal Reserve works and how money is "created". It is all about leveraging. Should every bank's account holders attempt to withdraw their "money" from these banks ( a "run on the banks" ), we would quickly discover that there is no money to be had. It is all a facade. The best you could hope for is 10% of what you deposited, if what the banks hold in reserve is equally distributed.The same would be true if all shareholders sold their stocks in all of the corporations, with the exception that corporations are able to leverage as far as they can acquire loans/stocks for. Also, corporations will pay preferred shareholders first and common stock shareholders may not receive anything. The first to sell will get the highest return while the last to sell will get nothing. Very few, if any, corporations have enough cash/assets to cover the price of their outstanding stocks.One sure way to kill Capitalism is for everyone to try to sell their stocks and drain their bank accounts at the same time. There is NO money.

I have heard that when the markets crashed, in 2007 and reached their lowest point, $13,000,000,000,000.00 worth of wealth just simply evaporated. You may want to recheck that figure but, I believe that it is correct.

How are many nation's trying to remain solvent now? They kick the can down the road by borrowing more money to meet their current obligations. The dog watches, as we chase our own tails.

Still, none of this shows that Capitalism would not exist without corporations. This does help show that corporations would not exist without Capitalism and some "creative accounting".

You simply are clueless and just spout a bunch of crap. Go to school and take some economics. Don't tell me that you have. It simply isn't believable.

I am well aware of how The Federal Reserve works and how money is "created". It is all about leveraging. Should every bank's account holders attempt to withdraw their "money" from these banks ( a "run on the banks" ), we would quickly discover that there is no money to be had. It is all a facade. The best you could hope for is 10% of what you deposited, if what the banks hold in reserve is equally distributed.The same would be true if all shareholders sold their stocks in all of the corporations, with the exception that corporations are able to leverage as far as they can acquire loans/stocks for. Also, corporations will pay preferred shareholders first and common stock shareholders may not receive anything. The first to sell will get the highest return while the last to sell will get nothing. Very few, if any, corporations have enough cash/assets to cover the price of their outstanding stocks.One sure way to kill Capitalism is for everyone to try to sell their stocks and drain their bank accounts at the same time. There is NO money.

I have heard that when the markets crashed, in 2007 and reached their lowest point, $13,000,000,000,000.00 worth of wealth just simply evaporated. You may want to recheck that figure but, I believe that it is correct.

How are many nation's trying to remain solvent now? They kick the can down the road by borrowing more money to meet their current obligations. The dog watches, as we chase our own tails.

Still, none of this shows that Capitalism would not exist without corporations. This does help show that corporations would not exist without Capitalism and some "creative accounting".

Quoting Ossqss:Bah! those evil corporations. We should just do away with all of them.

Why do they do those things they do anyhow?

Hummm, well because their stockholders and customers force them to do so.

Humm, who are those stockholders and customers anyhow?

YOU!

So what happens if we get rid of those corporations that we have forced via ownership and buying their products to do so many horrible things?

Perhaps we stop providing clothing, food, water, medical assistance, transportation, entertainment, and on and on for half of the global population or more?

Ah, but that is at the root of the green movement in the end is it not? Control of pretty much everything from activities of individuals to population growth or reduction I should say. Net net, that is what they strive for no matter how you crunch the numbers. Just ask how much freedom you have if their future comes to fruition.

Just look past the political party known as the IPCC and find the real reason it exists called the UNFCCC. CO2 simply their tool to herd the cattle into place and share the hard work and wealth of doers to support the squatters. In your spare time read up on Agenda 21 and find out how real it really is.

Edward Goldsmith would have been so proud of many who post here :)

I will go no farther.

So really, who has better margins with a similar size market cap anyhow? Exxon or Apple? LOL!

Quoting Ossqss:Bah! those evil corporations. We should just do away with all of them.

Why do they do those things they do anyhow?

Hummm, well because their stockholders and customers force them to do so.

Humm, who are those stockholders and customers anyhow?

YOU!

So what happens if we get rid of those corporations that we have forced via ownership and buying their products to do so many horrible things?

Perhaps we stop providing clothing, food, water, medical assistance, transportation, entertainment, and on and on for half of the global population or more?

Ah, but that is at the root of the green movement in the end is it not? Control of pretty much everything from activities of individuals to population growth or reduction I should say. Net net, that is what they strive for no matter how you crunch the numbers. Just ask how much freedom you have if their future comes to fruition.

Just look past the political party known as the IPCC and find the real reason it exists called the UNFCCC. CO2 simply their tool to herd the cattle into place and share the hard work and wealth of doers to support the squatters. In your spare time read up on Agenda 21 and find out how real it really is.

Edward Goldsmith would have been so proud of many who post here :)

I will go no farther.

So really, who has better margins with similar size earnings anyhow? Exxon or Apple? LOL!

Bah! those evil corporations. We should just do away with all of them.

Why do they do those things they do anyhow?

Hummm, well because their stockholders and customers force them to do so.

Humm, who are those stockholders and customers anyhow?

YOU!

So what happens if we get rid of those corporations that we have forced via ownership and buying their products to do so many horrible things?

Perhaps we stop providing clothing, food, water, medical assistance, transportation, entertainment, and on and on for half of the global population or more?

Ah, but that is at the root of the green movement in the end is it not? Control of pretty much everything from activities of individuals to population growth or reduction I should say. Net net, that is what they strive for no matter how you crunch the numbers. Just ask how much freedom you have if their future comes to fruition.

Just look past the political party known as the IPCC and find the real reason it exists called the UNFCCC. CO2 simply their tool to herd the cattle into place and share the hard work and wealth of doers to support the squatters. In your spare time read up on Agenda 21 and find out how real it really is.

Edward Goldsmith would have been so proud of many who post here :)

I will go no farther.

So really, who has better margins with a similar size market cap anyhow? Exxon or Apple? LOL!

Quoting martinitony:I'm sure the Doc will have me out of here shortly. Happy holidays.

Nah, you're confusing this with the main blog. Maybe your comment will be axed because of the direct scatological insult, but otherwise you're free to completely foam at the mouth as far as the proprietors of this blog seem to be concerned. Carry on.

Quoting martinitony:How fair was it for Stalin and Kruschev to starve 20 millions in the Ukraine to prove a point. How fair for Mao to kill even more to cleanse his society? How has Cuba and N. Korea done under enforced socialism?

It boggle my mind to hear some of you go on and on about how terrible this country, how terrible our business leaders. Go to eastern Europe and see the ecological destruction other forms of government put upon this Earth. Go live in Cuba or N. Korea where poverty of all but a few criminals that run their society is the standard, not the exception.

Honestly, reading this blog sickens me for the most part. Those of you, and it is many, that are socialists, you should say it out loud and not pretend you are not. Those of you who think that socialism might have some good ideas, do yourself a favor and read read read on socialism's accomplishments.

Should this prove to be the best defense you have to offer for corporations, then you should never be amazed that no corporation would hire you as part of their legal defense team. I will be fair and state that not even corporations can offer credible defense for their existence. What they can do, and seem to do quite well, is to brainwash the citizens of the world that Capitalism would cease to exist without corporations. Nothing could be further from the truth, concerning corporations.

"1. Corporations are persons with regard to law. If they commit crimes they or their parts (people) are punished. They are sued just as a person is sued and liable for their acts. I have heard no one that espouses capitalism and democracy suggest otherwise.

Corporations can and have been sued. Sometimes they are even sued out of existence. When you consider that the same people that lead these corporations are still free to reopen the corporation, under a different name, and even gain the advantage of none of the liabilities that the same corporation, under the old name, was faced to pay compensation for. Should a person try to do the same, change their name, to escape their legal responsibilities under their other name, this is considered attempted fraud and you will be charged with such. There is no way to physically incarcerate a corporation for crimes they may have committed. Corporations can not be physically executed for causing the death of a human or humans. Why? Corporations are not people.

"2.As to persons employed by corporations, they are no different than you as an individual using a hammer made in Germany or a saw made in Japan if you are a carpenter. You are not permitted to use contraband in your private business and a corporation would be criminally liable if it housed or protected criminals or illegals in its business activities. No one suggests different."

Persons that have been convicted of felonies lose their right to vote. Corporations can still hire them but, they then make up part of the human element of that corporation. Illegals are "housed" and employed by corporation ALL OF THE TIME. When they are caught hiring illegals they defend their actions in a myriad of ways. Corporations are never incarcerated. Why? They are not people and it is physically impossible to incarcerate a corporation. Please, keep up with the current events. Since corporations can and do hire individuals that can be ruled ineligible to vote in our elections then should they be limited on their political influences based on the percentage of people within the corporation that are legally able to vote in our elections? Let us say that only 65% of the corporation's people are legally able to vote in our elections. Do we then limit the corporation to 65% of our political process? No, we do not. Let us say that a corporation has hired only those that have a right to vote in our elections. 100% of the people, within the corporation, has a legal right to vote in our elections. Do we them give them a full vote and the corporation with 65% of compliance would only get 65% of a vote that the corporation with 100% compliance gets? No, we do not do that. With a person, you are either entitled to a vote or you are not. Each eligible person to vote gets a 1 vote count and not a percentage of a vote based on how much of the criteria they have gained.

"3. The notion that a corporation can act as a sociopath is nonsense both legally and from a practical business level. There are fines for the corporate entity and incarcerations for law breakers working there. On a business level, how likely is it that business won't be hurt by common knowledge of a corporations unethical behavior or public concern about its harmful activities? Note the advertising campaigns of major oil and banks. You think they think they can get away with anything?"

A corporation can not be sociopath, for only a person can be. A corporation is quire capable of showing all of the tendencies of a sociopath. Do the tobacco based corporations ring any bells?Yes, you can incarcerate the law breakers, within the corporation. Why? That is a person. Corporations can never be incarcerated because it is physically impossible to so. This is just another example of how a corporation is not a person.Pick an oil corporation. ANY oil corporation. Everyone one of them pollute or drinking water, the air we breath and the land we must live on. They cause death and destruction in normal operations of conducting business. This comes with the territory, to so speak. We, as consumers, can punish one over the other by who we choose to do business with but, we have no real choice sense they ALL do it. Sometimes one is better than other and we reward them with our business this week. Next week they may cause death, destruction and contamination and we reward another oil corporation instead. In the end, we are all dealing with the same beast. We are not given the choice to do otherwise.On a side not, the oil industry, a single industry, controls the world's economy. Should the economy improve, they will raise the price of their products and thus destroy any economic growth we had just realized. ... The dog has us chasing our own tail.

Congratulations! You have been successfully brained washed by corporations and now fully possess a corporate mentality. You are able to carry out the duties of your normal activities but, you will never be allowed to think for yourself, concerning corporations, again.Why do I vote? Because you vote.

"5. Do you think without the assemblage of great amounts of capital and the maintenance of that capital that Ford Motor, ATT, IBM, ...would have been capable of employing millions in decent paying jobs? How foolish you sound."

These same corporations could do just as well in employing people without being a corporation. There is only one real reason why a company would become a corporation. This is to escape many of the laws that we, the people, are forced to live under. Now, who is that sounds foolish?

"Are you even aware of the despair that existed throughout the entire world before CORPORATE America grew?"

Corporations did not do this. Capitalism did this. Again, you are confusing the two.

"Do you understand that what we here take for granted, the ability and possibility that you , any individual, can grow his wealth and ascend to the middle and upper classes, is something that in almost every country in the world is not possible? And in those countries where it is now possible, USA was the first, and the rest model themselves after us?"

Again, you confuse corporatism and Capitalism. Capitalism built us our advantages and built our middle class. Corporations are destroying our middle class. Most of the countries that followed our corporate ways are also suffering through the same economic downturns that we suffer now. They should have adhered to our Capitalistic models and left our corporate mentality behind. They would have been better off, had they had done so. Do you see the difference now?

"What does it take for you to get it?

Same question, back at ya.

"Socialism is folly and ALWAYS fails, but worse than its failures is its destructiveness in the name of fairness."

I have already told you that I would stand by your side to defend Capitalism. I also told you that I would destroy you, in a defense of corporatism, should you choose to defend corporations.

The rest of your comments are nothing more than a political rant that has no merit towards our discussion. Should it make you feel better, I will also stand by your side to defend democracy. What you need to understand is that professional lobbyist, many of them financed by corporations, have bastardized our form of democracy as well. We, the people, have lost the ability to be heard over the professional lobbyist that will court, to be nice, our political leaders for their own self serving gains over the gains of the people. We, the people, have been cast aside in favor of the special interests. When we allow this to happen, we must not complain about what we reap. We helped to sow these seeds. Should you desire a different crop, you must first plant different seeds.

The Prosecution has no other comments, at this time. Does the Defense have any further evidence they wish to present before this Court of Opinions?

1. Corporations are persons with regard to law. If they commit crimes they or their parts (people) are punished. They are sued just as a person is sued and liable for their acts. I have heard no one that espouses capitalism and democracy suggest otherwise.2.As to persons employed by corporations, they are no different than you as an individual using a hammer made in Germany or a saw made in Japan if you are a carpenter. You are not permitted to use contraband in your private business and a corporation would be criminally liable if it housed or protected criminals or illegals in its business activities. No one suggests different.3. The notion that a corporation can act as a sociopath is nonsense both legally and from a practical business level. There are fines for the corporate entity and incarcerations for law breakers working there. On a business level, how likely is it that business won't be hurt by common knowledge of a corporations unethical behavior or public concern about its harmful activities? Note the advertising campaigns of major oil and banks. You think they think they can get away with anything?4. I don't care that corporations can't vote and don't know why you do.5. Do you think without the assemblage of great amounts of capital and the maintenance of that capital that Ford Motor, ATT, IBM, ...would have been capable of employing millions in decent paying jobs? How foolish you sound.Are you even aware of the despair that existed throughout the entire world before CORPORATE America grew?Do you understand that what we here take for granted, the ability and possibility that you , any individual, can grow his wealth and ascend to the middle and upper classes, is something that in almost every country in the world is not possible? And in those countries where it is now possible, USA was the first, and the rest model themselves after us?What does it take for you to get it?Socialism is folly and ALWAYS fails, but worse than its failures is its destructiveness in the name of fairness. How fair was it for Stalin and Kruschev to starve 20 millions in the Ukraine to prove a point. How fair for Mao to kill even more to cleanse his society? How has Cuba and N. Korea done under enforced socialism?

It boggle my mind to hear some of you go on and on about how terrible this country, how terrible our business leaders. Go to eastern Europe and see the ecological destruction other forms of government put upon this Earth. Go live in Cuba or N. Korea where poverty of all but a few criminals that run their society is the standard, not the exception.

Honestly, reading this blog sickens me for the most part. Those of you, and it is many, that are socialists, you should say it out loud and not pretend you are not. Those of you who think that socialism might have some good ideas, do yourself a favor and read read read on socialism's accomplishments.

I am a cooperatist, just so you know. i have a lot of problems with capitolism. First and foremost is that all these yahoos saying how great it made America are taking away from America's greatness which was established when freedom was chosen over life. Capitolism, in the big employment/military success sense, was no where to be found. Our forefathers chose freedom when we were weak economically and militarily. I doubt it is a choice that conservatives would make again today, from reading their comments. I think they would be the modern equivilent of crown loyalists. But other problems with capitalist arguments follow:

1. The successes of capitalism are based on competing with dictatorships, as you noted. Capitalism is efficient in certain circumstances, in the sense that viruses are efficient. Dictatorships are notably inefficient. Hardly a big victory.

2. Capitalism in the strict sense is coming to an end. There are many reasons for this and none of them have to do with socialism ideals. To pick two: technology is approaching the economic singularity point if not the AI event horizon. (the economic singularity is when technology can do your job better than you can.) Also, at some point, there is no need to consume so much more which decreases the effectiveness of capitolism more.

3. The capitalism system doesn't provide for environmental controls. It requires an outside the system set of controls. The rich who want to destroy the environment are the same ones who sell America to foreign oil companies and sell America bit by bit in congress and yet will never live near a waste dump or drink polluted water.

4. ALL models of systems without inheritance tax end with the rich creating an ologarchy where the 'little people' are essentially slaves. Call trying to prevent that socialism if you want, but what would rather see in America? Some form of balance or else a nation of poor ignorant struggling to servive masses?

What he says is true then and it is true today. Capitalism is the best economic policy to help all across the world. So what is different from then and now? Corporatism has bastardized Capitalism and has turned it away from an economic policy and into a political policy.

As corporations gain more and more political clout, then it is corporations, and not the people, that determine political policy. Corporations begin to determine the laws we all will live under and without any recourse being offered to the citizens of a nation. Become a shareholder, you may say? Unlike a political vote where one person has one vote, shareholders have one vote per share held. Anyone that has more shares than you has a greater a voice than you, within a corporation. Even then, the shareholders have no vote concerning the day to day operations of the corporation. Shareholders are usually restricted to votes on mergers, buyouts and take overs. In other words, shareholders are usually only allowed to vote on the structure of the corporation and not on the way the corporation does business.

Corporations are already trying to turn the citizens of a nation into shareholders. This is true among the democratic forms of government anyway. How, you may ask? The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that Corporations are people too and even gave them the privilege of spending all they wish towards political campaigns. This gives them the shareholder equivalent of one dollar equals one vote. The ones holding the most dollars will get the loudest voice in our political processes.

What is wrong with this, you may ask?

1. Many corporations are multinational and with no specific interest to the country they are based in other than gaining as much political leeway as they can gain. They will also cater to the political interests of other nations, in our elections, to gain further access and favor in the other country.

2. Corporations are comprised of people. We have restrictions on who is qualified to vote in our elections and yet corporations are given a pass on this in the sense that some of their employees are not qualified to vote in our elections. A. Some, and sometimes nearly all, of their employees are not U.S. citizens. B. Some of their employees have not have met the minimum age requirement to vote. C. Some of their employees may have been convicted of federal crimes.

3. Corporate leaders, by our federal law are required to maximize the profits for the shareholders. This is usually done without regards to any moral or ethical considerations. This places corporate leaders on the same level as any sociopath. (There have already been many cases, brought by shareholders, against corporate leaders because they felt these corporate leaders had cost them share value. And, they have won.)

4. Corporations do not get a voter's registration card and cannot physically enter a polling booth to cast a ballot.

5. Corporations have played a large part, if not sole responsibility, towards destroying our middle class.

I will stand by your side and defend Capitalism. I will destroy you, with the facts, should you try to defend corporatism.

1. Corporations are persons with regard to law. If they commit crimes they or their parts (people) are punished. They are sued just as a person is sued and liable for their acts. I have heard no one that espouses capitalism and democracy suggest otherwise.2.As to persons employed by corporations, they are no different than you as an individual using a hammer made in Germany or a saw made in Japan if you are a carpenter. You are not permitted to use contraband in your private business and a corporation would be criminally liable if it housed or protected criminals or illegals in its business activities. No one suggests different.3. The notion that a corporation can act as a sociopath is nonsense both legally and from a practical business level. There are fines for the corporate entity and incarcerations for law breakers working there. On a business level, how likely is it that business won't be hurt by common knowledge of a corporations unethical behavior or public concern about its harmful activities? Note the advertising campaigns of major oil and banks. You think they think they can get away with anything?4. I don't care that corporations can't vote and don't know why you do.5. Do you think without the assemblage of great amounts of capital and the maintenance of that capital that Ford Motor, ATT, IBM, ...would have been capable of employing millions in decent paying jobs? How foolish you sound.Are you even aware of the despair that existed throughout the entire world before CORPORATE America grew?Do you understand that what we here take for granted, the ability and possibility that you , any individual, can grow his wealth and ascend to the middle and upper classes, is something that in almost every country in the world is not possible? And in those countries where it is now possible, USA was the first, and the rest model themselves after us?What does it take for you to get it?Socialism is folly and ALWAYS fails, but worse than its failures is its destructiveness in the name of fairness. How fair was it for Stalin and Kruschev to starve 20 millions in the Ukraine to prove a point. How fair for Mao to kill even more to cleanse his society? How has Cuba and N. Korea done under enforced socialism?

It boggle my mind to hear some of you go on and on about how terrible this country, how terrible our business leaders. Go to eastern Europe and see the ecological destruction other forms of government put upon this Earth. Go live in Cuba or N. Korea where poverty of all but a few criminals that run their society is the standard, not the exception.

Honestly, reading this blog sickens me for the most part. Those of you, and it is many, that are socialists, you should say it out loud and not pretend you are not. Those of you who think that socialism might have some good ideas, do yourself a favor and read read read on socialism's accomplishments.

What he says is true then and it is true today. Capitalism is the best economic policy to help all across the world. So what is different from then and now? Corporatism has bastardized Capitalism and has turned it away from an economic policy and into a political policy.

As corporations gain more and more political clout, then it is corporations, and not the people, that determine political policy. Corporations begin to determine the laws we all will live under and without any recourse being offered to the citizens of a nation. Become a shareholder, you may say? Unlike a political vote where one person has one vote, shareholders have one vote per share held. Anyone that has more shares than you has a greater a voice than you, within a corporation. Even then, the shareholders have no vote concerning the day to day operations of the corporation. Shareholders are usually restricted to votes on mergers, buyouts and take overs. In other words, shareholders are usually only allowed to vote on the structure of the corporation and not on the way the corporation does business.

Corporations are already trying to turn the citizens of a nation into shareholders. This is true among the democratic forms of government anyway. How, you may ask? The United States Supreme Court recently ruled that Corporations are people too and even gave them the privilege of spending all they wish towards political campaigns. This gives them the shareholder equivalent of one dollar equals one vote. The ones holding the most dollars will get the loudest voice in our political processes.

What is wrong with this, you may ask?

1. Many corporations are multinational and with no specific interest to the country they are based in other than gaining as much political leeway as they can gain. They will also cater to the political interests of other nations, in our elections, to gain further access and favor in the other country.

2. Corporations are comprised of people. We have restrictions on who is qualified to vote in our elections and yet corporations are given a pass on this in the sense that some of their employees are not qualified to vote in our elections. A. Some, and sometimes nearly all, of their employees are not U.S. citizens. B. Some of their employees have not have met the minimum age requirement to vote. C. Some of their employees may have been convicted of federal crimes.

3. Corporate leaders, by our federal law are required to maximize the profits for the shareholders. This is usually done without regards to any moral or ethical considerations. This places corporate leaders on the same level as any sociopath. (There have already been many cases, brought by shareholders, against corporate leaders because they felt these corporate leaders had cost them share value. And, they have won.)

4. Corporations do not get a voter's registration card and cannot physically enter a polling booth to cast a ballot.

5. Corporations have played a large part, if not sole responsibility, towards destroying our middle class.

I will stand by your side and defend Capitalism. I will destroy you, with the facts, should you try to defend corporatism.

What's really funny is how much worse income inequality has become in the past 30 years. Friedman had some good ideas--most people with his brain power do, at least from time to time--but his Reaganesque fantasy of a completely unregulated free market, laissez-faire on steroids, has proven to be a catastrophic failure for all but a minuscule fraction of Americans at the very top. Corporations as people? I doubt even Friedman would have approved of such a soul-crushingly inane decision...

Unfortunately, not everyone can win. Hence the inherent problem with socialism. You eventually run out of other peoples money.

Just look across the pond and see for yourself.

Rookie, 539, That is going to produce nightmares :)

Remember, models are dialing your future in ...........

I like you, ossqss, and I will be fair with you.

Your vision of the future will not bring about a similar scenario as depicted in , "The Postman". I believe that a similar scenario will come to us regardless of how any of us envision the future now. Why? Resources, my friend, resources. We will simply run out of enough resources. Even if the human race suffers a massive die off but, still manages to survive, then it will be a lack of human resources that will limit us. Still being fair to you, I think your ideology will only hasten our getting there. Should AGWT be true, and I believe that it is, this will only further hasten our getting there. Your ideology of free trade, free markets and shipping raw materials 1,000's of miles to be partially of fully assembled and shipped another 1,000's of miles to be sold and consumed also hastens our reaching unsustainable. Sooner or later, we will face this reality. I prefer later. ... Consume less, conserve what you consume and recycle what you discard. This is the only way to give future generations the time and resources to have a chance to escape the possible reality of, "The Postman". Doing less than this only leads to, "The Postman" being a stronger probability.

Quoting Neapolitan:I see you've fallen victim to the Fox-ian folly of trying to dehumanize the OWS patriots as a way of dismissing them. Good luck with that. But just so you know, it's not "a few hundred", but rather tens of thousands. And the numbers are increasing.

I've responded several times with the basics of what I'd like the world of the future to look like. But in summary (so as not to bore everyone):

--A world in which the mindless pursuit of profit isn't both the primary motivation behind everything that gets done and first and foremost on the minds of those writing the laws;

--A world run led by people who have a least the slightest bit of vision and are therefore capable of seeing that our present political and evironmental course is untenable;

--A world in which differences in cultures, races, religions, and personalities are accepted and encouraged, instead of being cause for fear and warmongering;

--A world in which learning and education are valued and available to everyone;

--A world in which science and scientists are respected, not ridiculed.

Those things are a start, anyway.

Sounds good, but unfortunately the vision has proven problematic.

Unfortunately, not everyone can win. Hence the inherent problem with socialism. You eventually run out of other peoples money.

Quoting nymore: I don't think masters has any doubt in his mind about AGWT. Your reading skills are fine it is my writing skills that lack.

My point was directed at Neopolitan who said the reason Munich RE has more extreme weather claims is because of AGWT I disagreed and gave reasons why. He called my a denialist for not towing the AGWT line. The reasons I gave are the ones on Masters blog today.

I showed the Munich RE graph that indicated a pretty sharp rise in the number of weather-related natural disasters in the US over the past couple of decades. There was nothing on the graph about dollar amounts or death tolls; it was just the number of events. Some came on here and claimed that that rise was due entirely to a rise in population; I pointed out that a 400% rise in severe weather events couldn't rightly be placed on a 33% increase in population. I still stand by that.

Quoting JupiterKen:Thanks 'rookie. My computer 'blowed-up' and I'm on my work laptop with IE6 and a postage stamp screen. My old eyes didn't see the space. I can't even use the link you posted. New 'puter tomorrow, hopefully (go FedEx):)

Oh, man! I feel for you. The only thing worse than using an old laptop for posting to a blog would be a new "smart phone"!

I wish I could speed up FedEx for you! I would, if I could! Get back on when you get the new computer. We will take her for a test drive! ;-)

Thanks 'rookie. My computer 'blowed-up' and I'm on my work laptop with IE6 and a postage stamp screen. My old eyes didn't see the space. I can't even use the link you posted. New 'puter tomorrow, hopefully (go FedEx):)

You posted while I was writing this, so I will add this. The whole phrase contains the claim that Dr. Masters may feel some uncertainty concerning AGWT. .. You are an intelligent person. I have no doubt that you posses strong reading skills. Perhaps you should have focused just on the first part of the phrase and left out the added, "uncertain about AGWT (Dr. Masters)" part. The first part of the statement will draw very little to no disagreement. The last part has yet to be shown. You added the last part of the statement without any evidence that it is true or even reasonable. ... Yes, I make the same mistake, at times.

Quoting nymore: I don't think masters has any doubt in his mind about AGWT. Your reading skills are fine it is my writing skills that lack.

My point was directed at Neopolitan who said the reason Munich RE has more extreme weather claims is because of AGWT I disagreed and gave reasons why. He called my a denialist for not towing the AGWT line. The reasons I gave are the ones on Masters blog today.

I do not have any issues with, nymore. I like what you bring to the table. When you bring New York Style Picante Sauce to Texas you can expect those at the table to be a little disruptive. ;-)

Now you are making a third claim and I agree with your third claim as well. The point is that you were claiming that Dr. Masters feels some uncertainty regarding AGWT by trying to tie in that it is uncertain as to how much AGW is responsible for the recent weather related damages. One indirect claim does not prove the direct claim that you made. Show me where my reading skills suffer. Show me what you have read that supports your claim that Dr. Masters has any feeling of uncertainty concerning AGWT. AGWT and not any uncertainty concerning possible AGW related events.

Added

You posted while I was writing this, so I will add this. The whole phrase contains the claim that Dr. Masters may feel some uncertainty concerning AGWT. .. You are an intelligent person. I have no doubt that you posses strong reading skills. Perhaps you should have focused just on the first part of the phrase and left out the added, "uncertain about AGWT (Dr. Masters)" part. The first part of the statement will draw very little to no disagreement. The last part has yet to be shown. You added the last part of the statement without any evidence that it is true or even reasonable. ... Yes, I make the same mistake, at times.

Now you are making a third claim and I agree with your third claim as well. The point is that you were claiming that Dr. Masters feels some uncertainty regarding AGWT by trying to tie in that it is uncertain as to how much AGW is responsible for the recent weather related damages. One indirect claim does not prove the direct claim that you made. Show me where my reading skills suffer. Show me what you have read that supports your claim that Dr. Masters has any feeling of uncertainty concerning AGWT. AGWT and not any uncertainty concerning possible AGW related events.

I don't think masters has any doubt in his mind about AGWT. Your reading skills are fine it is my writing skills that lack.

My point was directed at Neopolitan who said the reason Munich RE has more extreme weather claims is because of AGWT I disagreed and gave reasons why. He called my a denialist for not towing the AGWT line. The reasons I gave are the ones on Masters blog today.

Quoting nymore: Some here are missing the point. The point being whether more population, more and larger and complex structures equals more claims of damage not to mention health insurance claims therefore more extreme weather events to an insurance company. You could have one some what bad weather event go through NYC and be called extreme by an insurance company and twenty events hit farmland that are extremely strong and not be called extreme by an insurance company. They classify by dollar value nothing else.

I am sorry nobody told me AGWT causes more population, infrastructure, and larger more complex buildings and technology. Equaling more expense when any storm hits

Now you are making a third claim and I agree with your third claim as well. The point is that you were claiming that Dr. Masters feels some uncertainty regarding AGWT by trying to tie in that it is uncertain as to how much AGW is responsible for the recent weather related damages. One indirect claim does not prove the direct claim that you made. Show me where my reading skills suffer. Show me what you have read that supports your claim that Dr. Masters has any feeling of uncertainty concerning AGWT. AGWT and not any uncertainty concerning possible AGW related events.

Your first statement claims that Dr. Masters feels an uncertainty concerning AGWT. "...uncertain about AGWT (Dr.Masters)" - You have never backed up that claim.

Now you claim "It is uncertain if climate change is partially responsible for the increase in damage." - I agree with this claim but, you have not shown any justification for your first claim and these are two, separate, unrelated claims.

Show me where my reading skills have suffered, concerning this, and your reading skills have remained unscathed, concerning this.

I meant the whole phrase not just the AGWT part I should or could have been more clear.

Damage from the extreme weather events has increased. Increases in population and wealth, and the fact more people are living in vulnerable areas, is the major cause of this increase in damage. It is uncertain if climate change is partially responsible for the increase in damage.

Which is exactly the reasons I gave earlier on this blog.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Your first statement claims that Dr. Masters feels an uncertainty concerning AGWT. "...uncertain about AGWT (Dr.Masters)" - You have never backed up that claim.

Now you claim "It is uncertain if climate change is partially responsible for the increase in damage." - I agree with this claim but, you have not shown any justification for your first claim and these are two, separate, unrelated claims.

Show me where my reading skills have suffered, concerning this, and your reading skills have remained unscathed, concerning this.

Quoting Neapolitan:OIC. In that section, Dr. Masters is not expressing his own opinion, but is rather quoting from the SREX preliminary report (Note that the list begins, "Here are some highlights on how the climate has already changed, according to the SREX report:").

It's important to note that the terms "certain" and "uncertain" in this context have specific meanings that shouldn't be misconstrued. In the sentence "it is uncertain if climate change is partially responsible for the increase in damage", the phrase 'it is uncertain if' doesn't mean 'it is not likely that' or 'scientists have no idea whether' or 'climatologists are completely confused and dismayed over the fact that it is not true that'; it means something more along the lines of 'while it is possible and may even be probable, scientists are not yet fully convinced that'. Looking around the denialosphere today, I see that misinterpretation being latched onto by every Anthony Watts and Joe Bastardi, while the rest of the report is pretty much ignored*. Shame on them if they know better but do it anyway. And shame on them if they don't know better.

* - Cherry-picking (chair'-ee--pik'-ing) - verb (trans-intrans) 1. the activity of selecting and/or presenting only that data which supports ones point of view, while intentionally omitting and/or de-emphasizing that which does not.

Some here are missing the point or trying to twist the point to fit their agenda. The point being whether more population, more and larger and complex structures equals more claims of damage not to mention health insurance claims therefore more extreme weather events to an insurance company. You could have one some what bad weather event go through NYC and be called extreme by an insurance company and twenty events hit farmland that are extremely strong and not be called extreme by an insurance company. They classify by dollar value nothing else.

I am sorry nobody told me AGWT causes more population, infrastructure, and larger more complex buildings and technology. Equaling more expense when any storm hits